Federal Judge Says Photographing Police Not Always Protected by 1st Amendment

[nerwin]

Yes, cops are suppose to enforce the law, but they also can make an informative decision too. I've done stupid stuff in school in which was an arrestable offense, but did I get arrested? Nope. The police officer didn't think it was necessary.

So you'd be okay going to jail for photographing a cop say during an event? Not me, I'd fight it. But if the police officer came over and said he doesn't want his picture being taken and asks me to delete it..okay no problem. Do you think I'd should be jailed?

Well yes, I think you should be jailed. But that's a separate issue.. lol

Like you if an officer, or anyone really expresses a desire to me that they don't wish to be photographed I delete it. It's common courtesy really.

Luckily for me, that hasn't happened yet. I've taken pictures of cops before and sometimes they notice and smile for the camera or wave.

 

[robbins.photo]

Luckily for me, that hasn't happened yet. I've taken pictures of cops before and sometimes they notice and smile for the camera or wave.

I don't shoot a lot of stuff where this sort of situation comes into play, but I've done a couple of events and on the rare occasion where a police officer is involved it's never been an issue. Still it baffles me that a judge would even consider something like this, it's just bizarre.

Basically he's saying I have a First Amendment right to disagree or protest, but I have no freedom of speech or expression if I'm not expressing an opposing viewpoint. It's sort of a bizarro world view in my humble opinion.

 

[pjaye]

What do you think about this? Will we get in trouble for taking pictures of police officers doing their duties?

Everyone wants to take a photo of a cop on a horse in NYC, will they just get thrown in jail because of that? I think they should be focusing on more criminal activities then some person with a camera that's not causing any harm.

I'm slightly worried about the future of photography.

Federal Judge Says Photographing Police Not Always Protected by 1st Amendment

Why are you worried about the future of photography because of this decision?
I really dislike the argument "they should be focusing on more criminal activities". I see that argument all the time. Different police forces have different officers doing different jobs in different departments. One officer doing his job that might focus on a bylaw or something that is not a violent crime does not mean that other crimes aren't being focused on. It's an argument that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Not where I live, they mostly sit in their cruisers glued to their phones instead of policing. I know more populated areas have bigger departments and officers assigned to different tasks. But I just don't see the point in a cop giving someone a fine or worse, jailed for someone taking picture of them doing their duties in a public area. I agree though, I should have worded it different, my bad.

But I'm not worried about the future of photography just because of this story. I've been hearing a lot about photography being a crime and if this trend continues and people become even more afraid....who knows...

Interesting, I have not heard a lot about photography being a crime. I have heard about photographing certain things/activities being illegal but not photography itself being a crime.
I'm sorry you have issues with your police department, I don't have that issue here. Our officers work hard, are very engaged and have a large community presence.
And you do realize that the police have no choice but to enforce the law right? They are not responsible for creating the laws, but their job, by definition, is enforcing those laws.

Yes, cops are suppose to enforce the law, but they also can make an informative decision too. I've done stupid stuff in school in which was an arrestable offense, but did I get arrested? Nope. The police officer didn't think it was necessary.

So you'd be okay going to jail for photographing a cop say during an event? Not me, I'd fight it. But if the police officer came over and said he doesn't want his picture being taken and asks me to delete it..okay no problem. Do you think I'd should be jailed?

If I broke the law, then yes, I fully expect to pay the consequences. You mention jail, are you sure this offence would get you put in jail and not just a fine? If I had an issue with that law, I would take it up with the people responsible passing the laws, not the police for doing their jobs, which are already incredibly hard as it is.

I'm a responsible adult who strives to not break the law. I also accept responsibility if I do break the law. Would I argue my side, possibly. In court where it's supposed to be argued.
I have a healthy respect for the law. And for police. I'm sorry you haven't had the same experiences. I can only imagine the crime rate where you live if as you state ",they mostly sit in their cruisers glued to their phones instead of policing". That would be horrible.

 

[nerwin]

What do you think about this? Will we get in trouble for taking pictures of police officers doing their duties?

Everyone wants to take a photo of a cop on a horse in NYC, will they just get thrown in jail because of that? I think they should be focusing on more criminal activities then some person with a camera that's not causing any harm.

I'm slightly worried about the future of photography.

Federal Judge Says Photographing Police Not Always Protected by 1st Amendment

Why are you worried about the future of photography because of this decision?
I really dislike the argument "they should be focusing on more criminal activities". I see that argument all the time. Different police forces have different officers doing different jobs in different departments. One officer doing his job that might focus on a bylaw or something that is not a violent crime does not mean that other crimes aren't being focused on. It's an argument that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Not where I live, they mostly sit in their cruisers glued to their phones instead of policing. I know more populated areas have bigger departments and officers assigned to different tasks. But I just don't see the point in a cop giving someone a fine or worse, jailed for someone taking picture of them doing their duties in a public area. I agree though, I should have worded it different, my bad.

But I'm not worried about the future of photography just because of this story. I've been hearing a lot about photography being a crime and if this trend continues and people become even more afraid....who knows...

Interesting, I have not heard a lot about photography being a crime. I have heard about photographing certain things/activities being illegal but not photography itself being a crime.
I'm sorry you have issues with your police department, I don't have that issue here. Our officers work hard, are very engaged and have a large community presence.
And you do realize that the police have no choice but to enforce the law right? They are not responsible for creating the laws, but their job, by definition, is enforcing those laws.

Yes, cops are suppose to enforce the law, but they also can make an informative decision too. I've done stupid stuff in school in which was an arrestable offense, but did I get arrested? Nope. The police officer didn't think it was necessary.

So you'd be okay going to jail for photographing a cop say during an event? Not me, I'd fight it. But if the police officer came over and said he doesn't want his picture being taken and asks me to delete it..okay no problem. Do you think I'd should be jailed?

If I broke the law, then yes, I fully expect to pay the consequences. You mention jail, are you sure this offence would get you put in jail and not just a fine? If I had an issue with that law, I would take it up with the people responsible passing the laws, not the police for doing their jobs, which are already incredibly hard as it is.

I'm a responsible adult who strives to not break the law. I also accept responsibility if I do break the law. Would I argue my side, possibly. In court where it's supposed to be argued.
I have a healthy respect for the law. And for police. I'm sorry you haven't had the same experiences. I can only imagine the crime rate where you live if as you state ",they mostly sit in their cruisers glued to their phones instead of policing". That would be horrible.

Well I live in a small state in a small town where there is only 3 cops. There barely is any crime here, I don't live in an area where there are multiple police departments and cop cars driving around everywhere. I'm lucky if I see one cop car in month. So no, I don't really know what its like to live in a huge populated area where there is a police officer on every corner.

I have much respect for law enforcement, but US laws? That's debatable. I find a lot of laws that are stupid. I have family who were and are police officers. My grandfather was a big time cop so I have a lot of respect for them.

 

[Designer]

It's sort of a bizarro world view in my humble opinion.

People with that worldview are allowed to vote and hold high office too, apparently.

 

[robbins.photo]

It's sort of a bizarro world view in my humble opinion.

People with that worldview are allowed to vote and hold high office too, apparently.

True, but then if I stood around worrying about the lack of common sense present in most elected/appointed officials I'd never get anything done.. lol

 

[480sparky]

Interesting, I have not heard a lot about photography being a crime.....

As a general rule, in the US it's not. But 99% of the population can't be bothered to actually read the Constitution. They've gotten thier education through YouTube Law, part of Google University, and their interpretations are affirmed by the Court of Public Opinion.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Read the whole thing - go to Scribd and look up the document number (in blue printing at the bottom of the shared article).

All Petapixel did is share one page of it... and their purpose seems to be to get people to look at their website so they can make money from ads. Their self proclaimed 'editor' seems to have no background in journalism - I have more than he seems to and that's not much. So it seems to be a marketing guy reposting stories or writing articles without researching. But he got people to look...

I'm only part way thru it but the guy in the case actually got a citation because he wouldn't leave the scene NOT because he took pictures. He said he was passing by and stopped to watch what was going on and took - ONE picture. When the officer kept telling him to leave he refused to go; he did not keep the phone or delete the photo. (After an incident the police are usually trying to clear the area and not have people hanging around.)

The other case involved a woman who is a 'self described "legal observer" ' who 'claims to wear a pink "identifier" ' and "While she thinks the police know who she is, she is not a liason with the police."

So she's what, just another wannabee? She apparently made herself some ID that's meaningless... is she deluded? or misguided at best in thinking she's something she's not. Seems like she sued because she said an officer restrained her but she didn't get charged or cited.

And I quit reading after 5 pages, go read the other 16 pages if you want... I don't know if somewhere in this there were legitimate complaints about how a police officer treated a citizen (there may be) but this doesn't seem like it's about a photographer being told to stop taking pictures or having photos deleted, etc.

Neither one seems to actually be a photographer, so I don't think this is about photography but more about citizen interactions with a police officer.

 

[nerwin]

Read the whole thing - go to Scribd and look up the document number (in blue printing at the bottom of the shared article).

All Petapixel did is share one page of it... and their purpose seems to be to get people to look at their website so they can make money from ads. Their self proclaimed 'editor' seems to have no background in journalism - I have more than he seems to and that's not much. So it seems to be a marketing guy reposting stories or writing articles without researching. But he got people to look...

I'm only part way thru it but the guy in the case actually got a citation because he wouldn't leave the scene NOT because he took pictures. He said he was passing by and stopped to watch what was going on and took - ONE picture. When the officer kept telling him to leave he refused to go; he did not keep the phone or delete the photo. (After an incident the police are usually trying to clear the area and not have people hanging around.)

The other case involved a woman who is a 'self described "legal observer" ' who 'claims to wear a pink "identifier" ' and "While she thinks the police know who she is, she is not a liason with the police."

So she's what, just another wannabee? She apparently made herself some ID that's meaningless... is she deluded? or misguided at best in thinking she's something she's not. Seems like she sued because she said an officer restrained her but she didn't get charged or cited.

And I quit reading after 5 pages, go read the other 16 pages if you want... I don't know if somewhere in this there were legitimate complaints about how a police officer treated a citizen (there may be) but this doesn't seem like it's about a photographer being told to stop taking pictures or having photos deleted, etc.

Neither one seems to actually be a photographer, so I don't think this is about photography but more about citizen interactions with a police officer.

So PetaPixel kind of clickbaited this.

 

[robbins.photo]

Read the whole thing - go to Scribd and look up the document number (in blue printing at the bottom of the shared article).

All Petapixel did is share one page of it... and their purpose seems to be to get people to look at their website so they can make money from ads. Their self proclaimed 'editor' seems to have no background in journalism - I have more than he seems to and that's not much. So it seems to be a marketing guy reposting stories or writing articles without researching. But he got people to look...

I'm only part way thru it but the guy in the case actually got a citation because he wouldn't leave the scene NOT because he took pictures. He said he was passing by and stopped to watch what was going on and took - ONE picture. When the officer kept telling him to leave he refused to go; he did not keep the phone or delete the photo. (After an incident the police are usually trying to clear the area and not have people hanging around.)

The other case involved a woman who is a 'self described "legal observer" ' who 'claims to wear a pink "identifier" ' and "While she thinks the police know who she is, she is not a liason with the police."

So she's what, just another wannabee? She apparently made herself some ID that's meaningless... is she deluded? or misguided at best in thinking she's something she's not. Seems like she sued because she said an officer restrained her but she didn't get charged or cited.

And I quit reading after 5 pages, go read the other 16 pages if you want... I don't know if somewhere in this there were legitimate complaints about how a police officer treated a citizen (there may be) but this doesn't seem like it's about a photographer being told to stop taking pictures or having photos deleted, etc.

Neither one seems to actually be a photographer, so I don't think this is about photography but more about citizen interactions with a police officer.

So once again a perfectly good rant is ruined by the facts.

Sigh..

Oh well, scones anyone?

 

[nerwin]

So once again a perfectly good rant is ruined by the facts.

Sigh..

Oh well, scones anyone?

Sounds better than what I had for lunch today.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Seems like that's what they're doing... didn't used to think that, but used to just glance at their articles - which seemed to be about camera stuff. Then they posted something that I'd seen elsewhere and thought their version (which went viral) was inaccurate to say the least. Then I looked up the editor... one thing leads to another. So I don't exactly have a very good opinion of them anymore.

I mean, what drives a lot of these type sites? Ads... if they weren't getting money from ads would they even be in business??


Scones sound better than silly rabbits. (see - the Coffeehouse)

 

[480sparky]

Read the whole thing - go to Scribd and look up the document number (in blue printing at the bottom of the shared article).

All Petapixel did is share one page of it...........

The entire document is on the page linked to in the OP.

 

[dennybeall]

News reporting in so many areas has deteriorated to such a low point it's hard to ever take a headline at face value. My favorite here locally was when they reported a youth was sentenced to jail for stealing a can of soda. In the text we read that the can of soda was in the refrigerator of someone else's house and the "youth" was a 3 time convicted burglar, and the people were asleep in the bedroom at the time.

 

[Derrel]

Seems like that's what they're doing... didn't used to think that, but used to just glance at their articles - which seemed to be about camera stuff. Then they posted something that I'd seen elsewhere and thought their version (which went viral) was inaccurate to say the least. Then I looked up the editor... one thing leads to another. So I don't exactly have a very good opinion of them anymore.

I mean, what drives a lot of these type sites? Ads... if they weren't getting money from ads would they even be in business??


Scones sound better than silly rabbits. (see - the Coffeehouse)

PetaPixel is a huge clickbait site! Or, as they self-proclaim, "The coolest blog on the Internet for photography enthusiasts! Photo and camera news, reviews, and inspiration."

The name of the game is to get people to click on the link!